JwalaMukhi wrote: One should only examine the 'Calcutta Quran petition' and judgment on it.

It has been over two decades, since judgment on the petition was pronounced or rather its "pleas" were "dismissed". The problem in that petition was that it seeked to be too broad and without a contextual case - except to ban parts of the Quran.

Maybe another attempt can be made, this time, not emotionally but with a contextual case, where some honest Islamist bugger has committed a crime in the name of Islam...should not be too difficult to find?

Also, the case should not seek to "ban" the Quran but pointers or a debate covered by the media and polity, which makes references to the texts will be enough to the get the fire burning.

ShauryaT wrote:One more request, to you or anyone: If someone can tell me where does Hinduism the religion ends and Hinduism the way of life starts, It will be very helpful.

No difference. They are both the same. The Hindu way of life is the Religion.

This question (and the answer) are crucial to the understanding of relations between Hinduism and other religions.

Hinduism covers a very broad area. It tramples on every single one of the areas that Islam seeks to cover - and Islam too covers a broad area and claims to be a way of life.

The only Islamic areas that Hinduism does not cover and lay claim to as its own are the need to worship just one God, the near-deification of just one man (Mohammad), and the rigid inflexible rules. That apart Hinduism fills up every nook and cranny of knowledge space into which Islam neither enters, nor dares to enter, primarily because Islam (at least the Islam of the Quran and Hadiths) get destroyed by entering areas where Hinduism has entered and left its footprint or at the very least allows access to without feeling threatened.

In fact the two paragraphs above this one can be represented in a Venn diagram showing the footprint of Islam and Hinduism. You can then see how dhimmitude still allowed Hinduism to survive. The restriction of Hindus to the small footprint of Islam did not restrict Hinduism much.

When Islam demanded that there be only one God, Hinduism responded by the rationalization that only Hinduism is capable of. It said "OK one God is fine because all paths lead to one"

When Islam demanded that idols should not be worshipped and went on and destroyed the "homes" for idols - the temples, it did not cramp Hinduism because the idols and temples were secondary to the fact that every rock, mountain, river, tree, animal and anthill serves as an "idol" for Hindus to find God.

One of the steps in the process of reconciling Islamic belief and Hindus belief is the understanding on each side of what the other accepts and providing the secular space for it.

In my review of Omar Khalidi's book in BRM I have pointed out one such instance of what appears to be Islamist bigotry on the part of Omar Khalidi. In his book Khalidi expresses takleef at the appearance of Hindu religions icons in police stations. What has to be understood is that in a Hindu majority land, everything is sacred. Every table, chair, leaf and stone are sacred. Khalidi has no business complaining. I don't hear Khalidi complaining about Christmas decorations in the US where he lives.

Khalidi also fails to point out that the wearing of a cross or the bowing for prayer in some corner by a Muslim is equally easily allowed in India.

On page 103 Khalidi says: "More than one observer has noticed the appearance of Hindu temples and Hindu religious images in police stations to the exclusion of those of the minority faiths". It is not clear whether the author objects to Hindu icons in police stations, or whether he is objecting to the lack of non-Hindu religious icons. Khalidi himself says why there are few Muslims in many police forces, and under the circumstances, a police station manned largely by Hindus cannot be expected to set up icons for those who are not present. Khalidi makes no attempt to ask if police personnel of religious minorities are prevented from performing minor acts of religious significance in the few police stations that do have them, such as the wearing of a cross or observance of an afternoon prayer or religious fast.

One difference between post independence India and Mughal India is that in the latter, any islamic objection to a Hindu practice resulted in the Hindu practice being relegated to the background so that it would not cause takleef to the Muslim. That is no longer necessary. Hinduism will reclaim its lost space. Islam will have to adjust. It was the prospect of that adjustment, and fear of that adjustment that led to partition.

Most Muslims are as adjusted to Hindu practices as Hindus accept Muslim practices. It is only when needless non-dharmic insinuations are made by Khalidi type scholars that we start getting the seeds of conflict.

ShauryaT wrote:One more request, to you or anyone: If someone can tell me where does Hinduism the religion ends and Hinduism the way of life starts, It will be very helpful.

No difference. They are both the same. The Hindu way of life is the Religion.

Thanks Shiv, that is my understanding too. The only difference is, I believe that the idea of religion is so indelibly linked with the organized ones, that it is not worth fighting with these guys that ours too conforms to their notion, but, (there is always a but) a little different.

One more question (maybe stupid again): Where does Hindu religion/way of life end and Hindu culture starts?

ShauryaT wrote:One more request, to you or anyone: If someone can tell me where does Hinduism the religion ends and Hinduism the way of life starts, It will be very helpful.

Same difference â€“ is it a wave or a particle?

Hinduism aka Sanathana Dharma is a religion as well as a path that stabilizes society.The latter has been sometimes called a way of life, but make no mistake it is a religion.

In understanding the nature of organization â€“ two terms have been used:
Hierarchical Bureaucracies and Clusters or Social Networks.

If Adharmic religions can be characterized as the former, then Dharmic traditions can be characterized by the latter.
Both are religions, but their organization varies. To my knowledge no one else that I know of has tried to adopt and learn or describe religions in the way I describe here.

The Hierarchical Bureaucracies - [HB] structure knowledge in a top to bottom (vertical) manner.
On the other hand Clusters or Social Networks [CSN] have clumps of dense knowledge and what I call a great flattening of knowledge in which the whole society participates. Thus it can seem with CSNâ€™s that there is no structure, order or moral center â€“ and that everything is relative.
This is not the case, the freedom and chaos the system exhibits is bound by an order (undefined, evolving and will wary in each age) defined by Dharma.

As you can see, the HBâ€™s are less adaptive inherently given knowledge is controlled and flows from the top â€“ perhaps by a book and its interpreters. Whereas CSNâ€™s are hard to nail down â€“ Hence your question on where Hinduism as a religion ends and Hinduism the way of life starts â€“ the participants in such networks are typically connected by myths and beliefs some congruent and others dissonant. These networks regenerate even if vast chunks of them are destroyed or amputated. Realizing this, not only helps explain where we are and how we got here, but also where we want to go and how to get there.

PS: You can read up on Mintzberg and others who have done great work on how organizations evolve for firms and political structures. However, to my knowledge no one has done an analysis of Religions. If anyone knows of such analysis, I would be very interested. Also see Melting Pot for a quick synopsis. I believe we need to understand religions as organizations and deal with them similar to political systems.

Multatuli wrote:Please do not represent the British as being Â´more moralÂ´ then the Spaniards or Portuguese because the Brits didnÂ´t resort to wholesale slaughter in India. The Brits were just as ruthless in North America as the Spaniards and Portuguese were in what is now known as Latin America.

well said.Sorry for one digression. This nonsense about 'Benevolent Brits' should cease. X-posting from Indian Interests thread. A quick look at their antics will convince how to accurately place football hooliganism with Stiff upper lip. Pl. respond Brits benevolence in India Interest thread. The glory of 'Benevolent Brits'. http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto ... 78,00.html

As millions died, the imperial government launched "a militarised campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought". The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places that had produced a crop surplus, the government's export policies, like Stalin's in Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the north-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceeding three years, at least 1.25m died.

Three recent books - Britain's Gulag by Caroline Elkins, Histories of the Hanged by David Anderson, and Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis - show how white settlers and British troops suppressed the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya in the 1950s. Thrown off their best land and deprived of political rights, the Kikuyu started to organise - some of them violently - against colonial rule. The British responded by driving up to 320,000 of them into concentration camps. Most of the remainder - more than a million - were held in "enclosed villages". Prisoners were questioned with the help of "slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes". British soldiers used ....

Pulikeshi wrote:To my knowledge no one else that I know of has tried to adopt and learn or describe religions in the way I describe here.

The Hierarchical Bureaucracies - [HB] structure knowledge in a top to bottom (vertical) manner. On the other hand Clusters or Social Networks [CSN] have clumps of dense knowledge and what I call a great flattening of knowledge in which the whole society participates.

In the study of complex systems, the difference between tree-structured (hierarchical) systems and networks is very well-known. I myself have given talks on the subject for years, and interesting examples can be found in how education, military, medical care organizes itself. Networks (clusters with a strong markov property) are known to be much better models of organization in nature than trees.

The fundamental problem with hierarchical structures is that, since it takes enormous bandwidth to transmit information from leaves to the root (it grows exponentially), there is a fundamental loss of information when links on the tree are of fixed bandwidth. A person at the top deciding can't handle all that information and is guaranteed to make mistakes, for example. Trees can be shown to go out of control; they spawn specialization, specialization causes replication, which causes more specialization. The tree explodes and this is unsustainable. On the other hand, if the tree is always contained to N nodes, this system is decidedly less flexible than either a tree that grows (which is unsustainable) or a network, where not the nodes but the links grow to provide more bandwidth, discussed next.

Self-regulation (aka homeostasis, flattening) is much better in networks. Information is transmitted redundantly and although cycles can form, the integrity of the system that the network models is much better maintained and sustainable. When a network is fully connected it becomes stiff (by analogy to systems of equations). When it becomes a chain, just flops around with no cohesion (obviously). It appears that the connectivity seen in nature is much more than a tree, but still it is very sparse needs fewer nodes (i.e. not stiff). We don't yet understand the natural laws of connectivity fully.

As a study, social networks are in fact a huge buzz now. In the US just go to NSF and see how much money has been poured into understanding them. The same is true of knowledge networks too, in research.

probably worth a whole thread of its own, that I had proposed once. Complex systems interpretation of geo-X (but also of religion, really just about any system).

Samuel: Any specific examples that come to mind - in competing environments. All organizations by definition have some type of hierarchy. It is well recognized that over burdening this hierarchy creates fat. It is also well recognized that a "networked" organization with a robust supply chain is far better than one, which seeks absolute control.

What I am looking for is a closer example, that fits Hinduism's structure or no central organization, whatsoever against let us say Islam, which has a lean and mean bureaucracy.

ShauryaT wrote:Samuel: Any specific examples that come to mind - in competing environments. All organizations by definition have some type of hierarchy. It is well recognized that over burdening this hierarchy creates fat. It is also well recognized that a "networked" organization with a robust supply chain is far better than one, which seeks absolute control.

What I am looking for is a closer example, that fits Hinduism's structure or no central organization, whatsoever against let us say Islam, which has a lean and mean bureaucracy.

Yes, in fact, I have argued why Hinduism is far more sustainable because it is a much better fit to a network model than hierarchical religions like islam and xtianity. It is sustainable because its network structure makes it much harder to destroy. This argument does not rely on an analogy, but uses first principles (with some idealization of course), on properties of graphs and metrics that can be asked of those graphs: homeostasis, redundancy, information capacity, efficiency and so on.

Are you looking for examples from organizations such as military, education, health, production...? The problem with using such examples is that they are decidedly human constructs. Humanity, for a large part, has known intuitively that networks survive better, but has never been able to exploit it as an organizational tool because they are not very efficient. Much of human organization was motivated by productivity and efficiency, and not sustainability of the self.

Or would you rather take examples from nature, there are many to be found from bacteria to whole ecosystems. Please let me know and I can send some slides from lectures I've given and others I have access to(sometime this week).

samuel wrote:Yes, in fact, I have argued why Hinduism is far more sustainable because it is a much better fit to a network model than hierarchical religions like islam and xtianity. It is sustainable because its network structure makes it much harder to destroy. This argument does not rely on an analogy, but uses first principles (with some idealization of course), on properties of graphs and metrics that can be asked of those graphs: homeostasis, redundancy, information capacity, efficiency and so on.

samuel wrote:Yes, in fact, I have argued why Hinduism is far more sustainable because it is a much better fit to a network model than hierarchical religions like islam and xtianity. It is sustainable because its network structure makes it much harder to destroy. This argument does not rely on an analogy, but uses first principles (with some idealization of course), on properties of graphs and metrics that can be asked of those graphs: homeostasis, redundancy, information capacity, efficiency and so on.

Can you do an article?

I am looking to start off an original articles thread.

OK. three pages or thirty?
Is this a reasonable subject: On Graphical Models of Religion Systems

samuel wrote:OK. three pages or thirty? Is this a reasonable subject: On Graphical Models of Religion Systems

Sounds like a terrific subject. A lot of problems in the world today have NOT been understood and solved because of lack of understanding of the social dynamics of religion and the naive assumption that the ascendancy of secular Western democracies and their secular victory in the secular cold war has somehow put religion in the past.

Three to eight pages would be right IMO- though it could be split up into two parts to make it longer.

Your take is invited too - but Samuel caught my attention because I have previously had a discussion with him in which he (IIRC) spoke about gaming that he has some experience with in his line of work or interest or something.

I will start an articles thread, but the thread will be subject to certain caveats and the ambit of the articles will be checked to see if they exceed what is generally allowed on BRF.

I second Shiv.
You should feel totally free to write your thoughts and research down and any stepping on is not implied at all here. It would make little sense for you not to. I study computational models of complex systems, therefore I might be able to compliment your work or be available as a resource to you, if you so like.

I am going to get started on my article, probably between six and 8 pages, condensed. Lets compete now to come out with the most distilled and cogent thoughts we can.

Friends, I am happy that many of you have replied to my previous post.You all seem to think that I have outrightly supported the British rule in India. this is not the case. In fact, I have more than once made this clear in my earlier posts

Make no mistake, Im not supporting the british, but thses are the facts.

Again, make no mistake, I am not calling the british good samaritans, but let us see facts as facts.

All I meant was this: Many things that British did in India to further their interests, indirectly helped the Indians. And more likely the british rule prevented our India from becoming another Pakistan, as it is today.

Alright, as many of you have said this issue is out of topic, I shall not post on this anymore. Thank you all again for your replies.

As for Sharuya:

Parshanth: I will not respond to your post, you seem to be new here, so welcome. I am glad that you have posted the above but let us stick to the thread topic. Also, hang around these threads, I have learnt many things over the years.

samuel wrote: Are you looking for examples from organizations such as military, education, health, production...? The problem with using such examples is that they are decidedly human constructs. Humanity, for a large part, has known intuitively that networks survive better, but has never been able to exploit it as an organizational tool because they are not very efficient. Much of human organization was motivated by productivity and efficiency, and not sustainability of the self.

So are there examples in military where clusters outsmart trees? Because all military structures I read till now were intensely tree based with some autonomy and 'clusters' here and there for military research, but basically a tree. Operations are always tree based. Ditto with all political organizations, such as party or police or state itself. The only place in West which is not a tree is Jury (which is social network of 12-18 randomly chosen people) and electorate (which is whole mass of citizenry with no hierarchy) at district, state and national levels.

Yes, in fact, I have argued why Hinduism is far more sustainable because it is a much better fit to a network model than hierarchical religions like islam and xtianity. It is sustainable because its network structure makes it much harder to destroy. This argument does not rely on an analogy, but uses first principles (with some idealization of course), on properties of graphs and metrics that can be asked of those graphs: homeostasis, redundancy, information capacity, efficiency and so on.

And the argument also goes against a large number of empirical evidences. Hinduism got wiped out Afghanistan, and then much of the Pakistan. Some 100% people were Hindus in Pakistan in 800 AD, and this came down to 23% in 1941 and now it is only 4%. Hinduism is also pretty much finished in Bangladesh. It has also declined in Indonesia, Malaysia etc to below 10%. Why go all the way back? It is declining in North East as we type these posts explaining why "Hinduism is stronger than Christianity". And while Hinduism is alive in India, to a considerable extent, credit goes to Sikhism, which is highly tree structured with Akal Takht etc as there central institutions. So after all, this "network" Hinduism, to survive from tree named islam, had to depend on a "tree" called Sikhism for its survival from another tree. So much networks' superiority over trees.

Or would you rather take examples from nature, there are many to be found from bacteria to whole ecosystems. Please let me know and I can send some slides from lectures I've given and others I have access to(sometime this week).

The thread is about Christianist vs Islamist vs Hindutvavaad (= Hindu Survival) . Each party is backed covertly and/or overtly by their governments and their military. (eg US military have wiped out Iraqi and Afghan military so that Chritianist missionaries can go into Afghanistan and Iraq for conversion.)

IOW, are talking about militaries and govts, and deciding which form of organization is better, networks or trees.

So the analogy from nature is not applicable as natural beings like bacteria and animals dont have force multipliers like guns and missiles. A social network is good to improve knowledge and establishing facts as knowledge and fact finding requires independence and free communication which is less in tree and more network (anyone can associate with anyone) . But then to convert knowledge into factories and finally weapons, one needs a very punctual predictable well designed and well structured system, which independent clusters simply cant provide.

The analogy in business is also not applicable here in thread, as business function because there are courts and police to force them to keep contracts.

In understanding the nature of organization â€“ two terms have been used: Hierarchical Bureaucracies and Clusters or Social Networks.

If Adharmic religions can be characterized as the former, then Dharmic traditions can be characterized by the latter. Both are religions, but their organization varies. To my knowledge no one else that I know of has tried to adopt and learn or describe religions in the way I describe here.

The Hierarchical Bureaucracies - [HB] structure knowledge in a top to bottom (vertical) manner. On the other hand Clusters or Social Networks [CSN] have clumps of dense knowledge and what I call a great flattening of knowledge in which the whole society participates. Thus it can seem with CSNâ€™s that there is no structure, order or moral center â€“ and that everything is relative. This is not the case, the freedom and chaos the system exhibits is bound by an order (undefined, evolving and will wary in each age) defined by Dharma.

As you can see, the HBâ€™s are less adaptive inherently given knowledge is controlled and flows from the top â€“ perhaps by a book and its interpreters. Whereas CSNâ€™s are hard to nail down â€“ Hence your question on where Hinduism as a religion ends and Hinduism the way of life starts â€“ the participants in such networks are typically connected by myths and beliefs some congruent and others dissonant. These networks regenerate even if vast chunks of them are destroyed or amputated. Realizing this, not only helps explain where we are and how we got here, but also where we want to go and how to get there.

Summarizing

a)Islam and Christianity are HB
b)Hinduism is CSN
c)CSN > HB
d)So Hinduism is stronger than Islam and Christianity.

Gee. Then how did Hinduism become extinct in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia ? And now Hinduism is declining even in North East and Christianists are advancing there? And also Daang (a district in Gujarat), parts of AP and now Orissa? And if Hinduism survived in India, considerable credit goes to Sikhism which is more of an HB (Akal Takht) then CSN.

---

Suffices to say that empirical evidence doesnt support this theory that CSN > HB.

Rahul Mehta wrote:Suffices to say that empirical evidence doesnt support this theory that CSN > HB.

.

Rahul Mehta - give the people a chance to say what they want to say. You have declared their views wrong even before they have written the reason for their views. You are always correct of course and once you have said it the truth is out and no further debate is possible or necessary.

However let the time-wasting fools who want to argue against your word have their say and let other fools get misled before we point them back to your eternal truths.

I believe the meaning intended by the people who are talking about networks versus hierarchies may be different from what you are saying. However I will not bother pointing out how because I am terrified of disagreeing with you. Once you have spoken, only you are right and there is absolutely no use trying to say that there can be even a single photon's worth of error in your view.

shiv wrote:However let the time-wasting fools who want to argue against your word have their say and let other fools get misled before we point them back to your eternal truths.

I believe the meaning intended by the people who are talking about networks versus hierarchies may be different from what you are saying. However I will not bother pointing out how because I am terrified of disagreeing with you. Once you have spoken, only you are right and there is absolutely no use trying to say that there can be even a single photon's worth of error in your view.

shiv wrote:Rahul Mehta - give the people a chance to say what they want to say.

Shiv,

I was merely summarizing what the post I quoted said.

The post quotes that Christianity/Islam are HB and Hinduism is CNS. Now if that is the case, then past 1000 years of History of regions which we now call as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Goa unambiguously show that HB > CNS ? And so do past 50 years of experiences in North East, where Christianists have made visible advances.

A theory is theory only if axioms support it, 1000s of examples support it, and zero examples violate it. eg when "apples falls on ground", it is applicable for all apples. You dont see even one apple that goes up in the sky after detaching from tree.

---

And I am not stopping anyone from posting anything. I am merely citing a few dozen empirical evidences that violate some of the assertions.

----

Hinduism 's ability to fight back begins ONLY after some 'HB' came around. Sikhism was one HB. Marathas came and vanished within a short time. Marathas created many events but could not create any long term trend. Sikhs created a movement that lasts even today. Thats because Sikhs created fundamental changes like creation of 'Akal Takht' an HB , writings like Guru Granth Sahib again an HB etc where as Marathas created kings and nothing more.

And then modern Indian Govt is another HB and given than 84% voters are Hindus, it is intensely influenced by Hindus' sentiments (just as members of American Govt cater Christianist sentiments ; eg do you think Bobby Jindal would have been elected Governor had he accepted Islam instead of Christianity?). Hence we have an HB called Indian Govt which is acts like Hindu HB given that 84% voters are Hindu. And we defeated this islamist nation Pakistan 4 times, but that credit goes to this HB namely Indian Govt.

Rahul Mehta wrote:Hinduism 's ability to fight back begins ONLY after some 'HB' came around. Sikhism was one HB. Marathas came and vanished within a short time. Marathas created many events but could not create any long term trend. Sikhs created a movement that lasts even today. Thats because Sikhs created fundamental changes like creation of 'Akal Takht' an HB , writings like Guru Granth Sahib again an HB etc where as Marathas created kings and nothing more.

And then modern Indian Govt is another HB and given than 84% voters are Hindus, it is intensely influenced by Hindus' sentiments (just as members of American Govt cater Christianist sentiments ; eg do you think Bobby Jindal would have been elected Governor had he accepted Islam instead of Christianity?). Hence we have an HB called Indian Govt which is acts like Hindu HB given that 84% voters are Hindu. And we defeated this islamist nation Pakistan 4 times, but that credit goes to this HB namely Indian Govt.

I merely want people to cater these empirical evidences.

.

.

That is an interesting and valid viewpoint RM.

However it may turn out that netwoks tend to survive although they may not win. Hierarchies get eliminated more easily. After they are eliminated, they no longer exist and people forget and do not think about why they disappeared. Examples are all those religions that disappeared in Arabia, Iran, Europe and South America.

Hinduism survived with losses. The network paradigm may explain why it survived, but it may also explain why it was unable to hold up against trees.

shiv wrote:Hinduism survived with losses. The network paradigm may explain why it survived, but it may also explain why it was unable to hold up against trees.

Shiv but if you note in places like Bangladesh, pukistan, afghanistan hinduism is more or less completely wiped out. So network paradigm does not guarantees survival and could well be the reason for extinction or coming to the brim of it.

So the only place where hinduism survived with substantial following is India, the country of its origin.

Sumeet - I was afraid to contradict Rahul Mehta - and I did not point out in response to his initial post that there IS a military equivalent in terms of Network Centric warfare which creates multiple nodes with equal information and initiative which would be more survivable that a centralised system.

The USSR's military was criticised as being hierarchical as opposed to US and NATO forces which were allowed initiative at junior levels.

One of the reasons pointed out wrt to the Indian army's successes vis a vis Pakistan was related to Officer casualties. the Officer casualty was a result of officer leading from the front creating greater autonomy and decision making among multiple independent groups.

So it might be wrong to classify systems as "purely hierarchical" or purely networks.

The relative mix of the two is important. And it is also important not to ascribe "inevitable victory" or "inevitable defeat" to any one model

We just don't know the exact factors.

Part of the reason for debate, opinions and articles is purely for understanding. Prima facie Hinduism should have got wiped out. Islam and Christianity are "all or none" faiths. If islam was driven out of Europe it was because the religion there was Christianity and not Hinduism.

In the span of 2000 years since Christianity was born and 1300 of islam all older religions in the Americas and Europe have been wiped out. Why not Hinduism?

Hinduism may well now be in the process of getting wiped out, but it may be worth looking at what aids survival and what aids victory at least as "gyan". because we are hardly likely to change anything. If Hinduism is going to get wiped out, it is going to get wiped out. Happy Shankranti to you.

1. Back in some 800 AD, Hinduism was from Afghanistan to Indonesia. So it has lost some 65% of land and about 50% of people in 1200 years.

2. Serious fights came from many, but except Sikhs and Maratha, others were more of speed breakers than something that can be labeled as reversal. Maratha had great kings like Shivaji but could not create great institutions and so started falling apart within decades after Shivaji died. Tremendous credit goes to Sikhs, but then Sikhs are more HB than CNS.

3. Then march of Islamists in India was halted by Sikhs and also by Christianists and MNCs (British). Europeans conquest were mix of both, Christian ism and Commerce. They defeated islamists in India. And then came WWI and WWII which weakened the Christianists as well. So if islamists have been weak between 1650 and 1950, the credit again goes to Sikhs and Christianists/MNCs, which were both HB and not CNS.

4. And after 1950, India has defeated islamist Pakistan 4 times. But the credit goes to GoI and Indian Military, both of which are HB.

5. In past 50 years alone, after freedom, CNS based Hinduism has lost sizable % of people if not land in NE, Daang, Orissa and AP to HB based Christianists. And rate at which HB based Christianists are advancing is increasing, not slowing down.

----

I will focus on theory later. But being a rustic, my tendency is to first put all empirical facts on table and then find a theory that fits all axioms and facts.

From some one who does not wish to see all the work done on threads go down the drain every time RM jee makes his appearance with his deadly cocktail of fact and fiction liberally shaken together and poured out as undebatable facts.

It is of course very easy to debate with him and point out where is he completely off the base and such like but given
1) The repetitive voluminous posts he his given to make
2) already seen tendency in past where no amount of discussion with him is likely to change the context and nature of his post one bit

Makes one rather reluctant to meddle with him at all.

Can RM jee be some how be persuaded to not derail each and every discussion which was fruitful and decent on BRF (till RM jees arrival) in some manner.

Hinduism may well now be in the process of getting wiped out, but it may be worth looking at what aids survival and what aids victory at least as "gyan". because we are hardly likely to change anything. If Hinduism is going to get wiped out, it is going to get wiped out.

Dear Sir,
IMO Hinduism ain't going to be wiped out. It is a religion which teaches
"Change is inevitable". Yes the way which we practice our religion will
modify, our habits may modify, according to the time, but fundamentaly
Hinduism will remain. Hinduism is Dharma, Dharma is decided by what
is right and what is wrong, this changes according to the situation, a Hindu
will decide his/her Dharma accordingly. Hinduism do not need a symbol
such as J.C. or the good book, which can be destroyed.

MO Hinduism ain't going to be wiped out. It is a religion which teaches"Change is inevitable". Yes the way which we practice our religion willmodify, our habits may modify, according to the time, but fundamentalyHinduism will remain.

I disagree, a concerted effort as is evident right now is enough to wipe it out. Sure, the ways oh Hinduism will remain and some of the old precepts still survive, but no one will call it that. It will morph to something else, but not Hinduism.

Already, calling yourself a Hindu is sacrilege as per most JNU type of people that control education in India and the media. You may argue that even if a set of beliefs even if called by another name is still Hinduism, and you may be partially right, but then the battle is already lost.

From some one who does not wish to see all the work done on threads go down the drain every time RM jee makes his appearance with his deadly cocktail of fact and fiction liberally shaken together and poured out as undebatable facts.

It is of course very easy to debate with him and point out where is he completely off the base and such like but given1) The repetitive voluminous posts he his given to make2) already seen tendency in past where no amount of discussion with him is likely to change the context and nature of his post one bit

Makes one rather reluctant to meddle with him at all.

Can RM jee be some how be persuaded to not derail each and every discussion which was fruitful and decent on BRF (till RM jees arrival) in some manner.

Pretty please?

Every sane person will support your call for reining in the troll who wants to ruin every thread with his gibberish about the judges.

JMT continuing on Pulkeshi's classification. Hinduism has been deeply entrenched, and political power is not the major attraction of this religion. Hindusim largely resembles CSN [Clusters of Social Networks] and it has the tenacity to act as HB [Hierarchial Bureaucracies]segments when situation demands it. i.e., not to say that whole of Hinduism exhibits one huge monolith HB. It has displayed as congrlomerates of HB and faced the challenges. This ability to morph to HB as situation demands, while maintaining CSN structure is its strength. Where morphing to HB did not occur in time and in adequate strength, such regions in best of circumstances became dhimmi and in worst case turned into Islamic.

The dismantling of HB was even swifter than its creation, that hindu societies fell back to CSN quickly. The result was weakness of Hindu society with smug satisfaction of pyrhic victories. The inability to understand that when adversaries have exclusively HB structure, that Hindu societies also have to maintain HB structure for a prolonged time even after victory for hystersis to set in. This would have provided lesser delay to morph to HB when situation demands the next time.

The immediate reversal to CSN, has had adverse impact in terms of consolidating the gains. This can be seen in foolish acts of pardoning the defeated enemies and the most fundamental error in not reclaiming the lost resources. Although, islamism claims it is either all or nothing, the fresh convert (especially a former hindu) is in a transitory phase,least virulent in terms of all or nothing, and is the most easily reclaimed. The failure to reclaim and consolidate the gains are telling. Not reclaiming is a sign post for the adversary that all is not lost, there is hope for a comeback. Essentially, hindu society viewed CSN as the natural state and HB as occasional but necessary evil. Where, the timing and the strength of HB was right, such places continues to have not succumbed to adharmic faiths. Where it prematurely reverted to CSN, it has been fertile ground for adverse all or nothing faiths to pose a dangerous comeback.

There is a slow but steady crystallisation of Hindu identity, thanks to a perverse form of secularism being practised in the country

In a recent article on the Gujarat Assembly election, Mr Ramaswamy R Iyer has let the cat out of the bag. He writes, "What should worry us, then, is not whether Mr Modi is a demon, but the change in the Gujarati psyche. What has happened to Gujarat? Is it still redeemable?

The post-Godhra violence of 2002 is not a matter of deep concern. Even if the allegation that the arson, loot and killing were state-sponsored is true, it matters less. What matters most is the change in the Gujarati psyche!

The resentment against Muslim conquerors is as old as the conquest of Patan by Muzaffar Shah in 1391 and the establishment of Ahmedabad at the site of Karnavati by Ahmed Shah in 1411. The deprivation of Junagadh from the Kshatriya Chudasamas by Bahadur Shah in 1610 was another upsetting event.

As recently as 1989, I had travelled in a bus in Ahmedabad when my fellow traveller asked for a ticket to Pakistan. He meant Jamalpur. Over the years, I have heard again and again how in localities like Kalupur and Dariapur, Hindu families have vacated their flats because Muslim neighbours cooked meat and fish. How the neighbours' sons whistled at their daughters. The families sold their flats at, say, Rs 4,000 a square yard, whereas they had to pay Rs 12,000 for their new residence in, say, the Satellite area. This expensive residence cleansing was at the back of middle class women helping their menfolk in the 2002 violence.

In 1969, Ahmedabad had witnessed a much bigger riot which lasted for weeks together. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan had to be invited from Pakistan to calm public anger at the time.

The year 1985 saw a long lingering riot which eventually cost Mr Madhavsinh Solanki his chief ministership. But prima facie, none of these cataclysms changed the Gujarati psyche. The age-old hypocrisy continued to adorn Hindu lips.{He means dhimmitude in the language of this thread} However misguided some Muslims might be, they are our brethren. Most of them are of our own common blood. They are less educated. Many of them are poor and backward. Hindus in influential positions do not give them jobs. Political parties exploit them for their electoral advantage. Muslims should, therefore, be helped rather than blamed. So went conversations except in very private when bitterness was allowed to spew. Otherwise, politically as well as socially, it was correct to sound secular.

As a child, I had overheard an aunt of mine, in exasperated anger, call her husband Nadir Shah, although she wore khadi and was in society a paragon of Gandhian samabhav. This is despite Mahatma Gandhi writing in his journal -- Young India, Collected Works -- that every Hindu is a coward while every Muslim is a bully.

Gandhi had set the pace with his taking over the leadership of the Khilafat movement in 1919. His motive was to befriend Muslims. Two leading maulanas, Muhamm-ed Ali and Shaukat Ali, were particularly determined to retain the Sultan of Turkey on his throne and in his Caliphate. After World War I, the British were keen on abolishing the Sultanate and as was Mustafa Kemal Pasha on ending the Caliphate. The Maulana-Mahatma agenda was so dreadfully communal that even Mohammed Ali Jinnah was opposed to it.

The Moplah riots were the direct result of the Khilafat movement. The official reports of the time stated that the main brunt of Moplah ferocity was borne by Hindus. They were massacred by the thousand, forcibly converted to Islam and their women were raped and killed.

The reaction of Gandhi to those atrocities was shocking. He described the Moplahs as "brave god-fearing fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious".

The era of Ishwar Allah tero naam and sarva dharma samabhav was inaugurated by Gandhi. The Mahatma's samabhav, which was succeeded by Jawaharlal Nehru's secularism, rose to extraordinary heights. An example was the murder of Swami Shradhananda in 1926 by one Abdul Rashid. The murderer's defence counsel was Nehru's friend and Congressman Asaf Ali. The accused was sentenced to death and hanged. Gandhi's comment was "I have called Abdul Rashid a brother,... I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami's murder". Most Hindus are still in the grip of this 'secular' samabhav, which explains why within decades after Partition, self-styled secularists are creating conditions for another vivisection of the country.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has boldly declared "Muslims First". India is a crypto-Muslim's paradise, be he a secularist, a Leftist or a Communist.

After the 2002 Assembly election, fears began to gather that some Hindus, especially in Gujarat, had begun to break out from the chains of 'secular' samabhav and come into their own. The ripples of change also began to reach Hindus living outside Gujarat.

In 2004, at the Calcutta Club there was a seminar with four speakers. Mr Narendra Modi, after speaking in Hindi on a Uniform Civil Code, received a roaring applause. The growing anxiety of crypto-Muslims was reflected in the media more and more. The demonisation of Mr Modi increased as the 2007 election neared. Little did the detractors realise that with every attack, the polarisation in his favour would be solidified harder.

Will a "Hinduism khatrey mein hai" slogan mobilize Hindus? Why or why not? Does it have anything to do with the weak mob-ilization skills of distributed network entities vis a vis HB ones??

Once mobilized, methinx a network warrior is unbeatable (short of physically annihilating of all the nodes) whereas the HB org is jus a bum to its 'high command' (pun unintended) away from disintegration. SImplistic but you get the idea. Why was Tancredo articulating what he was some moons ago?

And yup, the other much maligned and persecuted Ys also know this. More than once plots have been uncovered in the nick of time that aimed to force a mobilization by blowing up AlAqsa, IIRC.

ramana wrote:In a recent article on the Gujarat Assembly election, Mr Ramaswamy R Iyer has let the cat out of the bag. He writes, "What should worry us, then, is not whether Mr Modi is a demon, but the change in the Gujarati psyche. What has happened to Gujarat? Is it still redeemable?

What matters most is the change in the Gujarati psyche!

They are doing sociology experiments on people of Gujarat using high decibel media. It is run from the universities and people are being watched for progress and developments.